| Revision as of 13:34, 23 November 2011 editNmate (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,033 edits →Sorry to bother you← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 07:17, 13 January 2025 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,139,635 edits →The Bugle: Issue 225, January 2025: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{talk header}}{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:TParis/Nav}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|counter = 17 |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|archive = User talk:TParis/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = User talk:TParis/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|{{tmbox |
|
{{archive box|auto=yes}} |
|
|
|
|small = {{{small|}}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|image = none |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|style = text-align:center; |
|
|
|
|
|
|text = '''This page is protected due to persistent spamming, anonymous and new users may leave comments ].''' |
|
While cleaning up orphan talk pages, I ran across ]. It ended up orphaned because I think you got a little mixed up with the redirect/deletion per the results of ]. You , but then as a redirect to ]. You then deleted the article. I restored ], set the redirect, and deleted the redirect's talk page for you. -- ] (]) 06:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}}}} |
|
:Oh thanks. I don't know how that happened.--v/r - ]] 14:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
|
|
|
|small = {{{small|}}} |
|
== talkpage malf. == |
|
|
|
|image = none |
|
|
|style = text-align: center; |
|
|
|text = '''If you have come here to change my opinion, be ready to also change yours.''' |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:TParis/Nav}} |
|
|
{{semi-retired}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
Hi TParis, apparently you were the one who helped me with my talk page design, ]. Well now my talkpage is kind-of malfunctioning by having the text go ]. Would you please care to fix it? vr, <b style="font-family: lucida console, serif">]]]</b> (14:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}} |
|
|
{| style="clear:both;" |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == |
|
== Excuse me?? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> |
|
Hello, TParis - Would you care to explain why you removed (without even a word of explanation) ] from the article ]? I hope you will refrain from removing other valid categories in the future. Regards, ] (]) 08:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> |
|
:Do you have a source that says specifically "police brutality"? If not, than the category violates ].--v/r - ]] 15:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<div class="ivmbox-text"> |
|
|
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. |
|
== Sorry to bother you == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
Hello TParis, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</div> |
|
It looks to me that ] also have some problems with agressive users who treat Misplaced Pages as battleground while at the same time he has also engaged in edit warring over multiple articles triggered by his POV pushing as can been from his edit history just with an idle click . Does his report remind you of anything ? |
|
|
|
</div> |
|
:Natch, I remember that you told me that you were tried of it , however, I received a highly controversial one long month ArbCom block for wikistaling and editwarring issued by ] who I have never ever encountered on Misplaced Pages; it is likely that Ironholds is a talk page stalker of yours. Please note that the diffs could be as old as 5 days within the block entry at that time when I received the ArbCom block. Furthermore, it is not possible to issue a digwurren block for edit warring unless I am subject to a revert restriction as per WP: digwurren ,nor is it possible to corroborate wikistalking with 3 diffs without formal proceeding. It is a serious claim, and it requires very serious proofs. And in case there is no formal proceeding, a block still requieres some kind of interaction between the blocking administrator and blocked user and that did not happen. So I am obliged to appeal this poppycock unless I want to leave Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 14:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1258243506 --> |
|
::As your block happened on 5 October, you were placed on notice based on the old restrictions at ]. You were of the editing restriction on 17 April 2008. ] nor ] require you to have interacted with the blocking administrator prior to being blocked. In fact, the opposite is true. It is more appropriate for the blocking administrator to be ]. I cannot see how this new dispute Omen1229 has with these other editors relates to you other than that he has a dispute, but trust me that the folks who respond on ] will take full inspection of Omen1229's behavior in addition to the user's he has reported and if they find any problems, the ] effect will likely happen. I'd suggest you ] and ] before you find yourself under more restrictions or blocks relating to this issue. I'd rather not see you quit editing over this, but you should know that this behavior is ]. You need to ] for ] and just forget about him. Edit your own area of interest and just avoid contact and editing overlap with him.--v/r - ]] 14:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::There, you see, ] has come into full effect. He's been topic banned for six months. Now let it go.--v/r - ]] 14:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ''The Bugle'': Issue 223, November 2024 == |
|
:::::Who did I accuse of wikistalking? It was me who was blocked for wikistalking. Apart from that, I would like to accuse anybody of anyting. However, my block entry may be exploited against me as spear-head saying that once already I was blocked for wikistalking, which is true, only that the block rationale is all gammon and spinach. I accused nobody of wikistalking, nor did I blame anybody for anything. I just did let you know what was going on at WP ANI that I do not think is disruptive. Here my aim was trying to give you a more detailed insight on the case before a possible forthcoming appealing rather than blackmouthing anybody. |
|
|
::::::That is why I can't drop the stick to avert the spear-head spiked against me. So if I happened to appeal the block rationale, would you consider unfolding your opinion therein? And you also told that what I did was not wikistalking... You also recognised that there was perhaps some kind of POV pushing going on there for which I might have thought that my reverts were justified there, and if that was the case, my reverts hardly fell under ]. ''Wikistalking means that a user does cull an another one to lead her/him to drive away from Misplaced Pages, and not that when they wage edit-wars over POV-edits ,even if they follow each other around....which is inevitable if their interesting fields overlap that of each other...'' --] (]) 12:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="width: 100%;" |
|
== Your revert at ] == |
|
|
|
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" | |
|
|
{| |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div> |
|
|
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> |
|
|
* Project news: '']'' |
|
|
* Articles: '']'' |
|
|
* Book review: '']'' |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;"> |
|
|
''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1256183913 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards == |
|
Hi, please try not to revert edits which I make to correct my own spelling mistakes. Thanks -- ] (]) 18:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:My bad. I intended to remove what we call "grave dancing". Anything else was an oversight.--v/r - ]] 18:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::I know. It wasn't meant to be a ''schadenfreude'', even though it seems so. -- ] (]) 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voting is now open for the ] ] and ] awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes ] and ] respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via ] (]) 00:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Assuming good faith == |
|
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Hawkeye7@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Military_history/Members/Active&oldid=1259903100 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Always precious == |
|
I'm going to have to ask that you carefully reread the pledge that I wrote. Please note that it does not refer to the status of the image - it does not require that the image stay the same, change, or be removed. It is a pledge not to engage in futile discussion. |
|
|
|
] |
|
|
Ten years ago, ] were found precious. That's what you are, always. --] (]) 07:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I remember that! I believe this was also the same day that ] hit the front page for the first time too. Thank you! v/r - ]] 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Now that you've read and internalize that, I'd like you to read ]. Please do not, '''ever''', accuse people of acting in bad faith after they have contributed all of four comments. Your behavior is unbecoming a Wikipedian - even worse, an admin. ] (]) 22:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for the opportunity for self-reflection.--v/r - ]] 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Self-reflection is always a good thing. So is shutting up when you realize that everything that could be said in a discussion has been said many times over. :-) I don't see Hipocrite's pledge as likely to get any traction, but neither is it a bad thing, or something to assume bad faith over. --] 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hi Sarek! You're of course always welcome here, you should visit more often. ;) I might agree with you had Hipocrite's proposal not used the word "Shun" or involved ignoring others as a "pledge". I can't imagine a scenario where that would be considered a "good intention." Has the issue fallen to beating a dead horse? Yeah. That doesn't mean there isnt a chance that a new idea, criticism, or proposal might spring up within 6 months. The difference between Hipocrit's proposal and Olive's proposal is that Olive's involved restricting oneself, Hipocrite's involves restricting others.--v/r - ]] 23:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::While I had the same reaction as you to the word "shun", I think we might be taking it too seriously. Either way, I'm not sure how you can say that Olive's involved restricting oneself, rather than others, when the basis of the proposal was to not let anyone put an image at the top for 6 months (or whatever). Gotta run, bye. --] 23:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I hadn't considered that perspective. Having considered it now, though, I still have to disagree. Olive's may involve removing the image for six months, but it doesnt have to do with silencing others. If, and this is a long if because I'll admit that discussion hasn't gone anywhere, someone were to come along with a radical new proposal that changes everyone's perspective and the community can come to a unanimous consensus than the image could be restored prior to six months. Self imposed restrictions can be self-unimposed. Hipocrit's proposal would silence anyone with any idea whether new or old for six months with no opportunity for a ]. I'll await your response.--v/r - ]] 23:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ''The Bugle'': Issue 224, December 2024 == |
|
== Protecting article talk pages == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="width: 100%;" |
|
Hi, TParis. Earlier today I unprotected an article talk page that you had semiprotected for one month, apparently to prevent IPs from posting non-editing-related comments. |
|
|
|
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" | |
|
|
{| |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div> |
|
|
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> |
|
|
* Project news: '']'' |
|
|
* Articles: '']'' |
|
|
* Book review: '']'' |
|
|
* Op-ed: '']'' |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;"> |
|
|
''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 12:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1264992348 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ''The Bugle'': Issue 225, January 2025 == |
|
I recall that somewhere around here there is a guideline against protecting article talk pages except in extreme circumstances. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="width: 100%;" |
|
This particular instance, involving ], pretty well illustrates why that "rule" would have been adopted. A different user had shown up and deleted some reliably sourced content from the article, claiming it wasn't true. I reverted, and left a message on the user's talk page suggesting they bring their concern to the article talk page, since that's the place where these kinds of things are supposed to be discussed. But this user isn't autoconfirmed yet, so the discussion got started on my user talk page (a totally inappropriate place to start a content discussion, but the appropriate place wasn't available). One thing leads to another, and that another leads to some other thing... To avoid these kinds of unintended consequences, let's try to keep article talk pages available for article talk -- OK? --] (]) 02:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| valign="top" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em;" | |
|
:Hi. Before protecting, I consulted ] where it says "In addition, administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages that are...Article discussion pages, when they have been subject to persistent disruption. Such protection should be used sparingly because it prevents unregistered and newly registered users from participating in discussions." I took the latter part into consideration but considered the libeous edits worth a month of semi protection. If you disagree, that's fine, I'm not going to run back and reapply it; but then let's both keep an eye on it, ok?--v/r - ]] 02:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{| |
|
::Maybe several years of editing articles about educational institutions with bad reputations has given me a thick skin, but I have to say that I find nothing particularly unusual about the content that was posted on that talk page. Similar stuff -- and worse -- gets added to article pages on a rather frequent basis. Defamatory content is more damaging in articles than on talk pages, so when that kind of content is added to articles, it gets removed pretty quickly. Additionally, if it's added repeatedly the articles do get protected, but 10 edits by ~8 different IPs over a 3-week period is not, as a general rule, enough "persistent vandalism" to get an article page semi-protected at ]. --] (]) 04:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| ] |
|
:::Meh, well like I said, I'm not running back to restore the protection and I dont generally hang out at ]. Your concern is noted though, I'll keep it in mind in the future.--v/r - ]] 04:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| width="100%" valign="top" | <div style="text-align: center; color: darkslategray;">'''Your Military History Newsletter'''</div> |
|
== rfa == |
|
|
|
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> |
|
<small>Discussion moved to ]--v/r - ]] 04:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
* Project news: '']'' |
|
|
* Articles: '']'' |
|
|
* Book review: '']'' |
|
|
* Op-ed: '']'' |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|} |
|
|
<div style="font-size: 85%; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;"> |
|
|
''The Bugle'' is published by the ]. To receive it on your talk page, please ] or sign up ].<br/>If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from ]. Your editors, ] (]) and ] (]) 07:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Ian Rose@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:The_ed17/sandbox3&oldid=1266423875 --> |
